On 8/23/21 12:02 PM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> On 8/23/21 4:25 AM, Hao Xu wrote:
>> Given a linkchain like this:
>> req0(link_flag)-->req1(link_flag)-->...-->reqn(no link_flag)
>>
>> There is a problem:
>> - if some intermediate linked req like req1 's submittion fails, reqs
>> after it won't be cancelled.
>>
>> - sqpoll disabled: maybe it's ok since users can get the error info
>> of req1 and stop submitting the following sqes.
>>
>> - sqpoll enabled: definitely a problem, the following sqes will be
>> submitted in the next round.
>>
>> The solution is to refactor the code logic to:
>> - if a linked req's submittion fails, just mark it and the head(if it
>> exists) as REQ_F_FAIL. Leverage req->result to indicate whether it
>> is failed or cancelled.
>> - submit or fail the whole chain when we come to the end of it.
>
> This looks good to me, a couple of comments below.
>
>
>> Signed-off-by: Hao Xu <haoxu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> fs/io_uring.c | 61 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
>> 1 file changed, 45 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/io_uring.c b/fs/io_uring.c
>> index 44b1b2b58e6a..9ae8f2a5c584 100644
>> --- a/fs/io_uring.c
>> +++ b/fs/io_uring.c
>> @@ -1776,8 +1776,6 @@ static void io_preinit_req(struct io_kiocb *req, struct io_ring_ctx *ctx)
>> req->ctx = ctx;
>> req->link = NULL;
>> req->async_data = NULL;
>> - /* not necessary, but safer to zero */
>> - req->result = 0;
>
> Please leave it. I'm afraid of leaking stack to userspace because
^^^^^
Don't know why I called it "stack", just kernel memory/data
> ->result juggling looks prone to errors. And preinit is pretty cold
> anyway.
>
--
Pavel Begunkov
